Why doesn't Ford offer the premium package on V6?

[Blk2015GT]

You also need to think on a global scale too now that the Mustang is sold globally. I highly highly doubt the V6 is selling heavily overseas. In many countries gas is super expensive and small engine cars are the norm; or the "exotics" like the big V8s.

I just dont think there are enough compelling reasons to keep the V6 around much longer vs. the cost to keep the platform running and upgraded every refresh

Sponsored

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I agree with Maggneto. The EB engine has been around for years. Many people are driving them trouble free too.

How trouble free they actually are wasn't much of a factor in Ford's decision to keep selling the V6 for a while. People buy based on what they THINK is true. The simple fact that NA V6s have been around longer in Mustangs than the EB4 means a significant number of potential buyers will be more comfortable buying an NA v6. When that number falls below some threshold, the V6 will be history. Every year the EB is offered will remove the fear (rational or not, justified or not) for some buyers.

 

[TheDivaDanielle]

You also need to think on a global scale too now that the Mustang is sold globally. I highly highly doubt the V6 is selling heavily overseas. In many countries gas is super expensive and small engine cars are the norm; or the "exotics" like the big V8s.

I just dont think there are enough compelling reasons to keep the V6 around much longer vs. the cost to keep the platform running and upgraded every refresh

that's the thing, the Mustang isn't even sold with a v6 anywhere but the US and Canada. everybody ignores this.

 

[Bullitt]

Where is the physical proof that carbon buildup is a huge problem in the Ecoboost, and that a catch can will resolve the problem? I don't love Ford or any car manufacturer, I just require proof of the problem rather than someone's opinion. In order to claim the Ecoboost engine is problematic one must have some proof that the Ecoboost engine is actually problematic.

I am not blindly defending Ford because I love Ford I promise you. There are known issues with GDI engine technology but I have not seen any evidence that the problem is widespread or problematic in the 2.3.

The 2013 consumer reports annual auto survey is one example of the 3.5 ecoboost being at the bottom rung for reliability along with various other ecoboost engines: http://www.adandp.media/columns/ford-the-troubling-consumer-reports-results

Carbon buildup is a problem in every single car with solely direct injection sooner or later by the very nature of it's design. If you'd like to keep thinking the ecoboost is the next civic or corolla that will run issue-free for the next 20 years that's fine but I'm not gonna keep going back and forth.

 

[Maggneto]

The 2013 consumer reports annual auto survey is one example of the 3.5 ecoboost being at the bottom rung for reliability along with various other ecoboost engines: http://www.adandp.media/columns/ford-the-troubling-consumer-reports-results

Carbon buildup is a problem in every single car with solely direct injection sooner or later by the very nature of it's design. If you'd like to keep thinking the ecoboost is the next civic or corolla that will run issue-free for the next 20 years that's fine but I'm not gonna keep going back and forth.

Incredibly lame support for your argument that the Ecoboost engine is going to be problematic and that Carbon buildup is a big problem in the Ecoboost engine. When you have some real evidence to support your claims feel free to enlighten us all.

 

[andrew.k]

Why does anyone need to see any reliability proof of Ecoboost vs NA where there are laws in place that prove it. Hyperphysics is real, F=ma, second law of force. Anything, not just a turbo or engine with force applied to it will be more susceptible to breakage when compared to no force. What is the confusion?

This means: Reliability = NA > FI

The only reason they don't sell V6 with packages, is because it's doesn't produce the same %GP as the EB does.

If I elaborate further, capitalism does not agree with reliability because reliability does not equal profit.

 

[BmacIL]

The 2013 consumer reports annual auto survey is one example of the 3.5 ecoboost being at the bottom rung for reliability along with various other ecoboost engines: http://www.adandp.media/columns/ford-the-troubling-consumer-reports-results

Carbon buildup is a problem in every single car with solely direct injection sooner or later by the very nature of it's design. If you'd like to keep thinking the ecoboost is the next civic or corolla that will run issue-free for the next 20 years that's fine but I'm not gonna keep going back and forth.

The counterpoint to this is exactly what was mentioned earlier in the thread: the engines are not inherently unreliable. The way they are being used, often not befitting of a turbocharged engine, creates problems. LSPI is the big one. The Ford engine calibration and transmission calibration engineers have an extremely difficult time balancing something like this. One one hand, you have targets for accelerative capability in top gear before the transmission kicks down. On the other hand, you have the need to keep the engine out of a region where LSPI can occur. The engineers and their management have to estimate how much time a customer might spend in the LSPI region and develop strategies around that. They're not always going to be right or predict all customers. Myself, I would always, always lean towards staying away from the LSPI zone and deal with a much more minor annoyance in the form of more shifting. It's asymmetric risk.

Also,
Surveys and reports often do not capture the majority of customers. The loudest are always the ones with issues, and a few who are very, very happy. The majority are content/happy with their purchase and that's it to them.

 

[Stormtrooper5.0]

Yea the v6 will be gone soon probably 2018. This gen was a smack in the face for potential v6 Mustang owners. Kind of sad especially since the v6 has stood alongside it’s bigger v8 brother since the beginning.

The EB Mustang seems like a fun car, I owned a 2010 Mazdaspeed 3 and I imagine its just the faster rwd version of it.

I highly doubt we will see a ttv6 mustang in the future either, there is just no love for the v6, Ford don’t like it and everyone pokes fun at it (even GT owners). No need to continue it.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

People are acting like forced induction in cars has not been around for nearly 100 years.

Turbo four cylinders have been fairly common since the 80's. Diesel engines use turbos and those things last hundreds of thousands of miles if not millions of miles in many applications.

Why is this now a huge question mark when it comes to the new mustang?

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Yea the v6 will be gone soon probably 2018. This gen was a smack in the face for potential v6 Mustang owners. Kind of sad especially since the v6 has stood alongside it’s bigger v8 brother since the beginning.

The EB Mustang seems like a fun car, I owned a 2010 Mazdaspeed 3 and I imagine its just the faster rwd version of it.

I highly doubt we will see a ttv6 mustang in the future either, there is just no love for the v6, Ford don’t like it and everyone pokes fun at it (even GT owners). No need to continue it.

I don't understand the trepidation to go EB by V6 owners. I really don't care what model anyone buys but I am just curious that is all. Was your decision based upon questions about longevity or just the fairly small increase in price?

I don't think Ford is spitting in the face of V6 owners, they are just going with more modern technology to accomplish the same task. They can get better performance and better economy in a smaller package.

 

[BmacIL]

I don't understand the trepidation to go EB by V6 owners. I really don't care what model anyone buys but I am just curious that is all. Was your decision based upon questions about longevity or just the fairly small increase in price?

I don't think Ford is spitting in the face of V6 owners, they are just going with more modern technology to accomplish the same task. They can get better performance and better economy in a smaller package.

For most of us, the sound was not befitting of a sports car/coupe. That is the #1 reason I did not get an EB. I test drove several, and they are fun. The sound did not match the looks. It's not a hot hatch, it's not a japanese/korean quirkily styled coupe. It's a sexy, half muscle, half sports car and the 4 cylinder sound (particularly, that 4 cylinder) just didn't compute to me. Honda's inline 4's sound WAYYY better and that sound would've been good enough for me. Darn headifold!

The V6 sounds substantially better.

 

[Bullitt]

The counterpoint to this is exactly what was mentioned earlier in the thread: the engines are not inherently unreliable. The way they are being used, often not befitting of a turbocharged engine, creates problems. LSPI is the big one. The Ford engine calibration and transmission calibration engineers have an extremely difficult time balancing something like this. One one hand, you have targets for accelerative capability in top gear before the transmission kicks down. On the other hand, you have the need to keep the engine out of a region where LSPI can occur. The engineers and their management have to estimate how much time a customer might spend in the LSPI region and develop strategies around that. They're not always going to be right or predict all customers. Myself, I would always, always lean towards staying away from the LSPI zone and deal with a much more minor annoyance in the form of more shifting. It's asymmetric risk.

Also,
Surveys and reports often do not capture the majority of customers. The loudest are always the ones with issues, and a few who are very, very happy. The majority are content/happy with their purchase and that's it to them.

I agree, it makes sense that there's a balancing act the Ford engineers have to do in order to get awesome fuel economy, impressive performance, safety and reliability, all while keeping cost down to keep the bean counters happy. That's all I was saying too is that the non-enthusiast most likely won't be driving it differently than an NA car and that is what creates some of the potential problems.

I realize surveys are flawed and it may be a small sample but if only the ones with issues were the ones being polled and speaking up, none of the cars in CR would get positive scores.

 

[Stormtrooper5.0]

I don't understand the trepidation to go EB by V6 owners. I really don't care what model anyone buys but I am just curious that is all. Was your decision based upon questions about longevity or just the fairly small increase in price?

I don't think Ford is spitting in the face of V6 owners, they are just going with more modern technology to accomplish the same task. They can get better performance and better economy in a smaller package.

For me it was the price increase. When I was looking to buy my v6, the EB was still a few thousands more. My new V6 was $21k while the I did not find an EB cheaper than $25k. As you can see I was pinching pennies so if I was able to afford the EB I could probably only afford the most base EB I could possibly find. The GT was way out of my price range so that’s not even in the question.

And I am actually glad I got the v6… the v6 sounds and feels much better.

While I don’t care for premium interior (base is all I need) I do wish Ford at least offered an upgraded exhaust for their v6 Mustang just like Chevy did with their new v6 Camaros. Those v6 Camaros have a mean sound.

 

[Cobra Jet]

People are acting like forced induction in cars has not been around for nearly 100 years.

Turbo four cylinders have been fairly common since the 80's. Diesel engines use turbos and those things last hundreds of thousands of miles if not millions of miles in many applications.

Why is this now a huge question mark when it comes to the new mustang?

It was a huge question mark in 1984 when the Mustang SVO was introduced - and no one could figure out how a turbo 4-popper was able to keep up with its GT counterpart of the time... That question mark remained until 1986 when the SVO was dropped from production due to poor sales. Even in 1986, the SVO out handled its GT counterpart and was able to keep with it in the 1/4 mile.

The only reason that sales were poor was due to the fact that Ford did not train its Dealership Franchise Sales Teams properly... And most knew jack shit about the new SVO and its performance - so they continued to sell the GT - which at that time, the SVO HAD SUPERIOR handling, suspension and braking over the GT. Hell, it was an advanced Mustang for the time period...

The SVO is the first "Fox" Mustang that incorporated quad shocks and dual exhaust which was followed through into the GT models.

All wheel disc brakes didn't reappear on any Mustang again until the 1993 Cobra debuted. 16" 5-lug rims didn't reappear until 1994!

So there is no difference in today's Mustang turbo-4 capabilities than there were back in the 1984-1986 era.

Also, most people forget - the birth of the Mustang started out with a 4-cyl engine that was in the functional 1962 prototype... The almighty Pony car did not originate with a V8, fact.

 

[gov cheese]

As long as this new eco engine/turbo combo makes it pass the warranty period don't think ford cares much after that. The fix will be on the customers dime.
As far as performance and mileage goes ford neutered the V6 from the previous model year to make the eco look better on paper. Yes, you can mod the eco but will most likely void the warranty at the same time. No thanks.

Your opinion vs. Ford Engineering.....Hmmmm, this is a tough one. I mean Ford has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and there are literally millions of Eco's on the road as we speak. Do you have any proof that Eco's have more problems that NA Ford engines? Any carbon deposits widely reported? Again, there are millions of Eco's on the road since 2009 so where are the facts to back up your assumptions?

because ford engineering never makes a bad design.....
[ame]

Sponsored